701–710 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny how "I should be able to say what I please" and "I should be able to say what I please AND have no-one challenge me or criticise me" are so conflated. Don't dish it if you can't take it.
I'm fully able to take the parent's criticism. However, those who are downvoting me so that my post will be hidden, clearly are not able to accept criticism.
Regardless of being the right thing to do or not, it is very interesting to see a software platform banning a president of a country. Interesting times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "slippery slope" / "free speech" arguments are boring, and come into play almost anytime Facebook gets mentioned on HN. "Slippery slope" is also most commonly a fallacy , which a lot of people seem to ignore. > the fallacy of arguing that a certain course of action is undesirable or that a certain proposition is implausible because it leads to an undesirable or implausible conclusion via a series of tenuously con…
Slippery slope arguments only retain validity of each link in the chain is demonstrably probably. Even then, for something like resisting dangerous speech, what does the slope matter? If the original thing is good to do, don't worry about the slippery slope, just make the right decision. Then of it goes to far and you're on the edge of a slope, that's where you fight. If guidelines about violent speech are abused, th…
Well, what if the definition of "we" changes? What if you become the minority and the majority wants your speech limited?
The only reason why we have things like gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, etc, is exactly because of free speech. The speech at that time were the minority but were protected by the Constitution.
If we don't respect the rights of those that we disagree with, when (not if) they come into power, they will use those same rights to quash our free speech. And remember that almost half of the US voted for Trump who is demonstrably the worst president in US history. If there is a smarter, more palatable right-wing candidate (ex. Tom Cotton, etc), we really could see a Republican president in office by 2024. And they would use that hammer that the left have been trying to use to quash that free speech.
We have the Constitution and Free Speech for a reason. And it has worked for centuries now.
Regardless of being the right thing to do or not, it is very interesting to see a software platform banning a president of a country. Interesting times.
Since the election results became apparent cable outlets have begun cutting away from the President’s speeches and tech companies have begun censoring the President’s speech. Absolutely nothing has changed in the President’s speech or behavior since his 1st speech announcing his candidacy 5 years ago. We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to draw a line on violent speech and disinformation regardless…
You mean like 'no justice no peace' or just speech that doesn't align with your political ideology? (To be clear, I'm all in favor of defunding police and the government at large)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shut the fuck up. Seriously. I live in Fulton county. My wife worked the polls. We're engaged in the democratic process here. This was audited to hell and back. It was checked, and checked again. It was checked by both parties. It was checked by the courts. It was checked by the governor, by the secretary of state, by the media, it was even checked by the fucking companies who made the ballot machines. So when you sa…
Just because you worked there doesn't mean you know everything that went on. How do you even explain the pipe burst that never happened and the counting that continued. Everything in your area might have been on the up and up, but things happened you may have not seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA Also keep in mind Georgia never did re-canvasing and when they did a re-count, they recounted the IMAGES o…
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/georgia-election-officia...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact...
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-reporter-debunks-georgia-e...
Is this really your strongest piece of evidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.
It's very fair. Fox - and its equivalents - are run in a knowing and cynical way. "No reasonable viewer would think Tucker Carlson is news." The media barons believe their consumers are idiots, and treat them accordingly. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggest... You're going to have a hard time finding an equivalent statement from the progressive media. This is about clash of fundamentally inco…
https://deadline.com/2020/05/rachel-maddow-one-america-news-...
I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowin…
Have you actually watched Fox News lately? Right wingers are leaving it in droves because except for a few pundits (Tucker Carlson etc) They are too moderate. Most of the craziness is on social media these days and right wing news sites on the web
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep seeing 'armed mob' posted everywhere without any evidence. What were they armed with? I watched the whole thing live from many angles and I saw plenty of people doing dumb shit like breaking windows and such. The majority just waltzed in took a tour and walked out. They even obeyed the velvet ropes in the entryway. edit: looks like at least one person was inside the capitol with a firearm and four others were…
I've heard a lot of people mentioning the pipe bomb, but that was at the RNC, so I don't know either, I have yet to see anyone substantiate it.
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.
That’s hardly Facebook’s fault. It’s not their responsibility to educate their users on what a public utility is